Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24004890›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2013

Belief beyond the evidence: using the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity to show 2 practices that distort scientific evidence.

Andrew W Brown, Michelle M Bohan Brown, David B Allison

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03031132 (The Effects of a High Protein Breakfast on Appetite and Sleep in Young Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 78 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03031132 nasuspendednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of a High Protein Breakfast on Appetite and Sleep in Young Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorPurdue UniversityRan2016 to 2018Enrolled13ConditionsAppetite and General Nutritional DisordersArmsHP-Beverage Breakfast, HP-Solid Breakfast, Breakfast Skipping
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of the relationship between portion size and indexes of adiposity in children.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew W BrownOffice of Energetics (AWB and DBA), the Nutrition Obesity Research Center (AWB, MMBB, and DBA), the School of Public Health (AWB and DBA), and the Department of Nutrition Sciences (MMBB and DBA), University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Michelle M Bohan Brown
David B Allison

Funding

Why is the prevalence of obesity so high in U.S. Southern States? Regional predictors of BMI and obesity treatment response.P30DK056336 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BARBARA A GOWER · 2000 to 2026
$31.9M
UAB Obesity Training ProgramT32DK062710 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI James O Hill, Brooks C Wingo · 2004 to 2026
$5.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056336NIDDK NIH HHS P30DK056336NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK062710NIDDK NIH HHS T32DK62710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious intentional and unintentional factors influence beliefs beyond what scientific evidence justifies. Two such factors are research lacking probative value (RLPV) and biased research reporting (BRR).

objectiveWe investigated the prevalence of RLPV and BRR in research about the proposition that skipping breakfast causes weight gain, which is called the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity (PEBO) in this article.

designStudies related to the PEBO were synthesized by using a cumulative meta-analysis. Abstracts from these studies were also rated for the improper use of causal language and biased interpretations. In separate analyses, articles that cited an observational study about the PEBO were rated for the inappropriate use of causal language, and articles that cited a randomized controlled trial (RCT) about the PEBO were rated for misleadingly citing the RCT.

resultsThe current body of scientific knowledge indicates that the PEBO is only presumed true. The observational literature on the PEBO has gratuitously established the association, but not the causal relation, between skipping breakfast and obesity (final cumulative meta-analysis P value <10(-42)), which is evidence of RLPV. Four examples of BRR are evident in the PEBO literature as follows: 1) biased interpretation of one's own results, 2) improper use of causal language in describing one's own results, 3) misleadingly citing others' results, and 4) improper use of causal language in citing others' work.

conclusionsThe belief in the PEBO exceeds the strength of scientific evidence. The scientific record is distorted by RLPV and BRR. RLPV is a suboptimal use of collective scientific resources.

Indexed as

BiasBreakfastEndpoint DeterminationEnergy IntakeEvidence-Based PracticeFeeding BehaviorHumansObesityObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24004890
PMCPMC3798081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.